If you& #39;re missing a truly idiotic take on Orwell, and would like it topped off with a quote from an awful Douglas Adams book (and I say that as a huge Hitchhiker& #39;s fan), that the tweeter can& #39;t even be bothered to get close to right then, man, is this the thread for you. https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/1290034984871321600">https://twitter.com/arthur_af...

The whole "Sometimes 2+2=5" thing is just depressing.

We& #39;ve had examples using apples and oranges, an incorrect equation in modulo 3, somebody going with base-4, all to prove that 2+2 isn& #39;t always 4, and they still haven& #39;t actually made 2+2=5.

Planet-sized brains they ain& #39;t.

It still amazes me that it took these idiots until the point where they were, literally, arguing that 2+2=5 to see the parallels with Orwell.

Even more amazing is that, when they did, they decided that Orwell was the problem.

Orwell envisaged a narrowing of the language, the tightly defining of every term, but old meanings of words stick around for a long time, so it& #39;s a slow process.

Expanding words, so that they become meaningless or ambiguous, is much faster it seems.

I did adapt* Orwell& #39;s Principles of Newspeak appendix a few weeks ago…

https://excelpope.net/2020/06/28/georgina-orwell-writes/

*Steal">https://excelpope.net/2020/06/2...